Chapter 7. Third Language Acquisition of Norwegian Objects: Interlanguage Transfer or L1 Infl uence?

Jin, Fufen

doi:10.21832/9781847691323-010

Cited by 54 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I will only briefly mention a few relevant issues here, as overviews of this relatively new field may be found in numerous publications, most recently in Rothman et al (2019). In addition to studies finding transfer from the L1 on the L3 (e.g., Jin 2009, Na Ranong and Leung 2009, Hermas 2010, several models have been developed, arguing for a variety of factors responsible for crosslinguistic influence in L3 acquisition. These include the Cumulative Enhancement Model (CEM), which contends that L3 acquisition is cumulative and that both previously acquired languages may positively affect the L3 (Flynn, Foley andVinnitskaya 2001, Berkes andFlynn 2012), and the L2 Status Factor (L2SF), which claims that the L2 will be the primary source of influence in L3 acquisition, especially at early stages (e.g., Bardel and Falk 2007, Falk, Lindquist and Bardel 2015, Bardel and Sanchez 2017, generally due to similarities between the L2 and the L3 with respect to metalinguistic knowledge and storage in declarative memory (Ullmann 2001, Paradis 2009).…”

Section: Brief Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by-property acquisition

Westergaard

2019

Second Language Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I argue that first language (L1), second language (L2) and third language (L3) acquisition are fundamentally the same process, based on learning by parsing. Both child and adult learners are sensitive to fine linguistic distinctions, and language development takes place in small steps. While the bulk of the article focuses on crosslinguistic influence in L2/Ln acquisition, I first briefly outline the Micro-cue Model of L1 acquisition (Westergaard, 2009a, 2014), arguing that children build their I-language grammars incrementally, paying attention to small distinctions in syntax and information structure from early on. They are also shown to be conservative learners, generally not producing overt elements or performing movement operations unless there is positive evidence for this in the input, thus minimizing the need for unlearning. I then ask the question how this model fares with respect to multilingual situations, more specifically L2 and L3 acquisition. Discussing both theoretical and empirical evidence, I argue that, although L2 and L3 learners are different from L1 children in that they are not always conservative learners, they are also sensitive to fine linguistic distinctions, in that transfer/crosslinguistic influence takes place on a property-by-property basis. Full Transfer is traditionally understood as wholesale transfer at the initial state of L2 acquisition. However, I argue that it is impossible to distinguish between wholesale and property-by-property transfer in L2 acquisition on empirical grounds. In L3 acquisition, on the other hand, crosslinguistic influence from both previously acquired languages would provide support for property-by-property transfer. I discuss a few such cases and argue for what I call Full Transfer Potential (FTP), rather than Full (wholesale) Transfer, within the Linguistic Proximity Model (LPM) of L3 acquisition. Thus, rather than assuming that ‘everything does transfer’, I argue that ‘anything may transfer’.

show abstract

Section: Brief Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by-property acquisition

Westergaard

2019

Second Language Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of the work on L3 grammar acquisition seemed to support the idea of a dominant role of the native language (e.g., Hermas, 2010Hermas, , 2015Jin, 2009;Na Ranong and Leung, 2009). That is, that the default source of transfer or the only source of possible transfer is the native, firstacquired language.…”

Section: A Privileged Role Of the L1mentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of transfer studies in third language acquisition

Puig-Mayenco

Alonso

Rothman

2018

Second Language Research

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present systematic review examines what factors determine when, how and to what extent previous linguistic experience (from the first language, second language or both languages) affects the initial stages and beyond of adult third language (L3) acquisition. In doing so, we address what a bird’s eye view of the data tells us regarding competing theoretical accounts of L3 morphosyntactic transfer. Data couple together to suggest that some factors are more influential than others. As discussed, the systematic review transcends the field of adult multilingualism precisely because of what it reveals, as a prima facie example in behavioral research, in terms of how different types of methodological considerations impact the way data are interpreted to support or not particular claims.

show abstract

“…The L1 factor hypothesis Although never formalized as a model, the L1 factor (Hermas, 2010;Jin, 2009;Leung, 2005;Na Ranong & Leung, 2009) is in one sense the default proposal, postulating that the native language has a privileged role and thus the most decisive influence over the newly acquired linguistic structure. Is there any empirical evidence for this claim?…”

Section: The Current Proposals Of Morphosyntactic Transfer Into the Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

The scalpel model of third language acquisition

Slabakova

2016

International Journal of Bilingualism

173

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and Objectives: This article proposes the "scalpel model," a new model of third and additional language (L3/Ln) acquisition. The model aims to identify and examine what happens beyond the initial state of acquisition and what factors may influence change from one state of knowledge to another. Methodology: The article briefly examines the currently proposed hypotheses and models and evaluates the existing evidence for their predictions. It highlights several cognitive and experiential factors affecting crosslinguistic influence that are not taken into account by the current models. These factors include: structural linguistic complexity; misleading input or lack of clear unambiguous evidence for some properties or constructions; construction frequency in the target L3; and prevalent language activation or use. Data and analysis: Findings of recently published research are discussed in support of the scalpel model. In particular, findings of differential learnability of properties within the same groups of learners suggest that L1 or L2 transfer happens property by property and is influenced by diverse factors. Findings: The scalpel model explicitly argues that wholesale transfer of one of the previously acquired languages does not happen at the initial stages of acquisition because it is not necessary. It also argues that transfer can be from the L1 or the L2 or both, but it is not only facilitative. Originality: The new model increases the explanatory coverage of the current experimental findings on how the L3/Ln linguistic representations develop. Implications: The model emphasizes the importance of the cognitive, experiential, and linguistic influences on the L3/Ln beyond transfer from the L1 or L2. Thus, it aligns L3/Ln acquisition with current debates within L2 acquisition theory.

show abstract

Chapter 7. Third Language Acquisition of Norwegian Objects: Interlanguage Transfer or L1 Infl uence?

Cited by 54 publications

References 0 publications

Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by-property acquisition

Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by-property acquisition

A systematic review of transfer studies in third language acquisition

The scalpel model of third language acquisition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About